Court Dismisses Dokpesi’s N5b Defamation Suit Against Lai Mohammed, AGF

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Maitama,
Abuja has dismissed a defamation suit by businessman/politician,
Raymond Dokpesi against the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed
and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami.

Justice Olukayode Adeniyi, in a judgment on Tuesday, held that
Dokpesi failed to establish his claim that Mohammed defamed him by
allegedly including his name in a supposed list of looters at a
press conference addressed on March 30, 20018 by the Minister.

Dokpesi had, in the suit, stated that the Minister’s alleged
inclusion of his name among supposed looters of the nation’s
treasury has defamed him and damaged his reputation.

He demanded N5billion damages, public apology to the published
in five national dailies, among other reliefs.

Justice Adeniyi, in the judgment, faulted the evidence led by
Dokpesi through the eight witnesses he called and held that the
claimant failed to prove the publication of the alleged defamatory
statement.

He noted that the evidence of the eight witnesses were similar,
giving the impression that they were tutored and that their
statements were made before hand through the same mechanical
means.

Noting that the situation presented by the witnesses could be
termed; “hear one, hear all,” the judge found that the evidences of
the witnesses are materially the same.

He also noted that while Dokpesi pleaded libel, his witnesses
gave evidence of slander by all claiming to have heard of the
alleged defamatory publication on Channels Television.

Justice Adeniyi also found that the witnesses called by Dokpesi,
who claimed to have watched the press conference on Channels TV,
did not give evidence in respect of the exact statement made by
Mohammed, which they claimed defamed the claimant.

Upon examination, I do not fine the claimant’s witnesses’
evidence under cross-examination as helpful in establishing
publication.

At best, the totality of their testimony, stating that they
heard the first defendant calling the claimant a looter, amounted
to speculation as they failed to give evidence as to th exact words
allegedly spoken by the first defendant.

“I must hold that the evidence of CW1 to CW8 fell abysmally
short of the acceptable evidence of publication of the alleged
slander.

“I must quickly add that whatever opinion the claimant’s
witnesses have, with respect to the alleged defamatory statement,
in terms of how they received it or what interpretation they gave
to it, becomes irrelevant, they having failed to give a clear and
credible evidence of the said statement,” he said.

The judge further added that the claimant’s failure to prove
that the alleged defamatory statement was published to the
witnesses fatally paralysed his case.

He held that having not proved publication which is the first
ingredient necessary for the success of a defamation suit, it was
needless, based on the evidence before the court to proceed to
examine whether the claimant proved the other ingredients.

The judge then proceeded to dismiss the case.

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Maitama,
Abuja has dismissed a defamation suit by businessman/politician,
Raymond Dokpesi against the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed
and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami.

Justice Olukayode Adeniyi, in a judgment on Tuesday, held that
Dokpesi failed to establish his claim that Mohammed defamed him by
allegedly including his name in a supposed list of looters at a
press conference addressed on March 30, 20018 by the Minister.

Dokpesi had, in the suit, stated that the Minister’s alleged
inclusion of his name among supposed looters of the nation’s
treasury has defamed him and damaged his reputation.

He demanded N5billion damages, public apology to the published
in five national dailies, among other reliefs.

Justice Adeniyi, in the judgment, faulted the evidence led by
Dokpesi through the eight witnesses he called and held that the
claimant failed to prove the publication of the alleged defamatory
statement.

He noted that the evidence of the eight witnesses were similar,
giving the impression that they were tutored and that their
statements were made before hand through the same mechanical
means.

Noting that the situation presented by the witnesses could be
termed; “hear one, hear all,” the judge found that the evidences of
the witnesses are materially the same.

He also noted that while Dokpesi pleaded libel, his witnesses
gave evidence of slander by all claiming to have heard of the
alleged defamatory publication on Channels Television.

Justice Adeniyi also found that the witnesses called by Dokpesi,
who claimed to have watched the press conference on Channels TV,
did not give evidence in respect of the exact statement made by
Mohammed, which they claimed defamed the claimant.

Upon examination, I do not fine the claimant’s witnesses’
evidence under cross-examination as helpful in establishing
publication.

At best, the totality of their testimony, stating that they
heard the first defendant calling the claimant a looter, amounted
to speculation as they failed to give evidence as to th exact words
allegedly spoken by the first defendant.

“I must hold that the evidence of CW1 to CW8 fell abysmally
short of the acceptable evidence of publication of the alleged
slander.

“I must quickly add that whatever opinion the claimant’s
witnesses have, with respect to the alleged defamatory statement,
in terms of how they received it or what interpretation they gave
to it, becomes irrelevant, they having failed to give a clear and
credible evidence of the said statement,” he said.

The judge further added that the claimant’s failure to prove
that the alleged defamatory statement was published to the
witnesses fatally paralysed his case.

He held that having not proved publication which is the first
ingredient necessary for the success of a defamation suit, it was
needless, based on the evidence before the court to proceed to
examine whether the claimant proved the other ingredients.

The judge then proceeded to dismiss the case.